Orissa Court June 1990 Judgments
Sanjukta Padhan Vs. Laxminarayan Padhan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-29-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori39; II(1991)DMC579
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendant No. 1 in a suit for divorce is the appellant. Plaintiff filed the suit alleging that he had married defendant No. 1 in 1956 and they continued to live as husband and wife till 20-11-1970. They had one female issue named Doleswari. Defendant No. 1 was suffering from the disease of syphilis which was in a communicable form and while the plaintiff was absent, defendant No. 1 deserting him eloped away with one Rama Sahu and had sexual intercourse with him and since then said defendant No. 1 is living in adultery with said Rama Sahu and has not returned to the plaintiffs house nor the plaintiff has cohabited with her at any point of time thereafter. On these averments it was pleaded that the marriage be dissolved or alternatively a judicial separation be granted.2. Defendant No. 1 denied the allegations made in the plaint. According to her case, as defendant No. 1 did not beget a male child, the plaintiff wanted to marry another girl, but defendant No. 1 did not...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Lajarus Bahal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ152
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 378, Cr. P.C., against the order of acquittal from an offence Under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. On 4-4-1981 a goods train coming towards Rourkela Railway Station from Rayagada Railway Station stopped at about 9 p.m. for about 5 minutes to the west of the Railway Station for want of signal to enter into the Platform. Suddenly, three to four persons broke open the doors of two wagons containing cement bags on the northern side by breaking the seals. They unloaded some cement bags. Two Rakshyaks of Railway Protection Force marked it and chased to catch accused carrying one bag of cement. Accused failed to produce any authority for such possession and accordingly prosecution was reported for an offence Under Section 3(a) of the Act.3. Accused pleaded not guilty and explained in his statement Under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that he is an employee of one Murty w...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. Kamalalaya Cloth Store and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori44
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. The present appellant filed T.M.S. No. 105/79 for a mortgage decree for recovery of Rs. 24,905/- with future interest.2. The undisputed facts leading to the case are that the plaintiff-Bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as a loan to M/s. Kamlalaya Cloth Store, Khallikot. M/s. Kamlalaya Cloth Store was represented by defendant No. 1, the sole proprietor in the suit. Defendant No. 2 was the surety for the loan granted. It was a commercial loan sanctioned to the loanee for improvement of his business. The defendants did not appear and case was set ex parte. In the ex parte judgment dated 2-5-1980, learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur passed a preliminary decree for Rs. 24,905/- against the defendants with costs. The defendants under the decree were required to pay to the plaintiff pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 16 1/2 per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/-.3. The appellant-plaintiff has urged in this appeal the sole point that though ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanatan Ram and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ758; 1991(I)OLR23
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this revision, petitioners Seek to quash cognisance of offences taken Under Sections 147/148/336/427/454/380/294/506/436 with 511 read with 149 IPC.2. Prosecution case is that on 25-3-1981 at about 12 noon, petitioners committed rioting being armed with deadly weapons endangered the life of the inmates of the informant in G. R. Case No. 75 of 1989 causing damage to the house and household articles. They committed theft of the antenna and booster of the Television by breaking open the house after rebuking in filthy language and attempted to cause death with threatening dire conse- quence. Petitioners threw fire with intent to destroy the house in furtherance of their common object. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 4-7-1989 and cognizance was taken.on that basis., Against the aforesaid order, petitioners approached this Court in Criminal Revision No. 541 of 1989 and by order dated 11-12-1989 the ordar was set aside and matter was remitted back to...
Tag this Judgment!Uchhabananda Samantarary and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori145
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. In this batch of writ applications, the validity of Section 41A of the Arbitration Act which was brought on to the statute book by the Arbitration (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1982 (Orissa Act 3 of 1983) has been challenged. By the said amendment, in all cases where State Government, a local or other authority controlled by the State Government or a statutory corporation or a Government company is a party to the dispute, then such dispute would be referred to the arbitration of a tribunal to be constituted by the State Government consisting of 3 members, one from the Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch) who would be the Chairman, another from amongst the officers of the Public Works Department not below the rank of a Superintending Engineer and the third from amongst the officers belonging to the Orissa Finance Service not below the rank of a Superior Administrative Cadre in Class I. By virtue of the said amendment, all pending proceedings in respect of such ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Gouda and ors. Vs. Dandasi Goura (Deceased by L.R.) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Ori5
P.C. Misra, J. 1. This writ application arises out of a proceeding under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (Regulation 2 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation'). The petitioners have been aggrieved by the order of the Officer on Special Duty (Annexure 4) directing restoration of possession in respect of Ac. 3.750 decimals of land in favour of the present opp. parties of which the petitioners had been continuing in possession. The aforesaid order of the Officer on Special Duty has been confirmed by the Additional District Magistrate. Chhatrapur exercising appellate jurisdiction in Annexure-7. The prayer in the writ application is to quash Annexures 4 and 7. 2. The brief facts leading to the present case are as follows:The petitioners are the legal heirs of Raghunath Gouda who had purchased the disputed properties some in 1959 and the restin 1961. The present opp. party No. 1 initiated a proceeding under Regul...
Tag this Judgment!Krushna Kahali (Deceased by L.R.) and ors. Vs. Narana Kahali and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori134; I(1991)DMC39; 1991(I)OLR33
A. Pasayat, J. 1. In a suit for partition the question whether the original appellant Krushna (since deceased and substitute by his legal heirs) was adopted son of one Bhramar Kohali arose for consideration. Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the claim made in that regard by Krushna (defendant No. 2). Non-acceptance of the plea of adoption by the trial Court has brought the claimant before this Court. 2. The only question that needs answer in this appeal is whether the claim of adoption as raised was acceptable. For answering this question a brief reference to the respective averments is necessary. The undisputed genealogy is as follows : Sunil _______________________________________|________________________________________ | | | Bhramar Madhu Burundu | _______________________|________________ | | | | | Anant (D.1) Gani Krushna Shyama | | =Bhanumati =Mandodari (D.2) Krushna(D.6) (P2) | (D.3) | | | Naran (P.1) _________|______________________________ | | Dwija Laxmidhar (D.4)...
Tag this Judgment!Hara Dibya Vs. Pravakar Satapathy
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT607; I(1991)DMC85
A. Pasayat, J. 1. In the suit for partition the plea of adoption raised by the plaintiff having been accepted, the defendant has filed this appeal.2. A brief adumbration of the factual aspect is necessary plaintiff claiming to be adopted son of late Chaitanya Satapathy, and present appellant Hara Dibya filed a suit for partition claiming half-share; asserting his adoption in the year 1960. This claim was resisted by the defendant-appellant on the ground that there was no adoption as claimed, and in any event her consent which is mandatorily prescribed having not been obtained there was no adoption in the eye of law and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff-respondent is untenable; the plaintiff-respondent is the natural born son of Joginath Satapathy and in all relevant documents including voters' list and educational records the aforesaid Joginath has been recorded to be the father of plaintiff respondent.Trial Court framed four issues, the main issue being, 'Is the plaintiff adopted ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›